Our general subject is the correct handling of contradictions among the
people. For the sake of convenience, let us discuss it under twelve
sub-headings. Although reference will be made to contradictions between
ourselves and the enemy, this discussion will centre mainly on
contradictions among the people.

I. TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTRADICTIONS

Never before has our country been as united as it is today. The victories of
the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution and our
achievements in socialist construction have rapidly changed the face of old
China. A still brighter future for our motherland lies ahead. The days of
national disunity and chaos which the people detested have gone, never to
return. Led by the working class and the Communist Party, our six hundred
million people, united as one, are engaged in the great task of building
socialism.

The unification of our country, the unity of our people and the
unity of our various nationalities--these are the basic guarantees of the
sure triumph of our cause. However, this does not mean that contradictions
no longer exist in our society. To imagine that none exist is a naive idea
which is at variance with objective reality. We are confronted by two types
of social contradictions--those between ourselves and the enemy and those
among the people themselves. The two are totally different in their nature.

To understand these two different types of contradictions correctly, we must
first be clear on what is meant by "the people" and what is meant by "the
enemy". The concept of "the people" varies in content in different countries
and in different periods of history in the same country.

Take our own
country for example. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, all those
classes, strata and social groups opposing Japanese aggression came within
the category of the people, while the Japanese imperialists, the Chinese
traitors and the pro-Japanese elements were all enemies of the people.
During the War of Liberation, the U.S. imperialists and their running
dogs--the bureaucrat- capitalists, the landlords and the Kuomintang
reactionaries who represented these two classes--were the enemies of the
people, while the other classes, strata and social groups, which opposed
these enemies, all came within the category of the people.

At the present
stage, the period of building socialism, the classes, strata and social
groups which favour, support and work for the cause of socialist
construction all come within the category of the people, while the social
forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to
or sabotage socialist construction are enemies of the people.

The contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic
contradictions. Within the ranks of our people, the contradictions among the
working people are non- antagonistic, while those between the exploited and
the exploiting classes have a non-antagonistic aspect in addition to an
antagonistic aspect.

There have always been contradictions among the people,
but their content differs in each period of the revolution and in the period
of socialist construction.

In the conditions prevailing in China today, the
contradictions among the people comprise the contradictions within the
working class, the contradictions within the peasantry, the contradictions
within the intelligentsia, the contradictions between the working class and
the peasantry, the contradictions between the workers and peasants on the
one hand and the intellectuals on the other, the contradictions between the
working class and other sections of the working people on the one hand and
the national bourgeoisie on the other, the contradictions within the
national bourgeoisie, and so on.

Our People's Government is one that
genuinely represents the people's interests, it is a government that serves
the people. Nevertheless, there are still certain contradictions between the
government and the people. These include contradictions among the interests
of the state, the interests of the collective and the interests of the
individual between democracy and centralism; between the leadership and the
led; and the contradiction arising from the bureaucratic style of work of
certain government workers in their relations with the masses. All these are
also contradictions among the people. Generally speaking, the people's basic
identity of interests underlies the contradictions among the people.

In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national
bourgeoisie belongs to the category of contradictions among the people. By
and large, the class struggle between the two is a class struggle within the
ranks of the people, because the Chinese national bourgeoisie has a dual
character.

In the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it had a
revolutionary as well as a conciliationist side to its character. In the
period of the socialist revolution, exploitation of the working class for
profit constitutes one side of the character of the national bourgeoisie,
while its support of the Constitution and its willingness to accept
socialist transformation constitute the other.

The national bourgeoisie
differs from the imperialists, the landlords and the bureaucrat-capitalists.
The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is
one between the exploiter and the exploited, and is therefore antagonistic
in nature. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic class
contradiction can, if properly handled, be transformed into a
non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods.

However, it can
change into a contradiction between ourselves and the enemy if we do not
handle it properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criticizing
and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does
not accept this policy of ours.

Since they are different in nature, the contradictions between ourselves and
the enemy and the contradictions among the people must be resolved by
different methods. To put it briefly, the former are a matter of drawing a
clear distinction between ourselves and the enemy, and the latter a matter
of drawing a clear distinction between right and wrong. It is, of course,
true that the distinction between ourselves and the enemy is also a matter
of right and wrong. For example, the question of who is in the right, we or
the domestic and foreign reactionaries, the imperialists, the feudalists and
bureaucrat-capitalists, is also a matter of right and wrong, but it is in a
different category from questions of right and wrong among the people.

Our state is a people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and
based on the worker-peasant alliance. What is this dictatorship for? Its
first function is to suppress the reactionary classes and elements and those
exploiters in our country who range themselves against the socialist
revolution, to suppress all those who try to wreck our socialist
construction, or in other words, to resolve the internal contradictions
between ourselves and the enemy. For instance, to arrest, try and sentence
certain counter- revolutionaries, and to deprive landlords and bureaucrat-
capitalists of their right to vote and their freedom of speech for a
specified period of time--all this comes within the scope of our
dictatorship.

To maintain public order and safeguard the interests of the
people, it is likewise necessary to exercise dictatorship over embezzlers,
swindlers, arsonists, murderers, criminal gangs and other scoundrels who
seriously disrupt public order. The second function of this dictatorship is
to protect our country from subversion and possible aggression by external
enemies. In that event, it is the task of this dictatorship to resolve the
external contradiction between ourselves and the enemy.

The aim of this
dictatorship is to protect all our people so that they can devote themselves
to peaceful labour and build China into a socialist country with a modern
industry, agriculture, science and culture. Who is to exercise this
dictatorship? Naturally, the working class and the entire people under its
leadership. Dictatorship does not apply within the ranks of the people. The
people cannot exercise dictatorship over themselves, nor must one section of
the people oppress another. Law-breaking elements among the people will be
punished according to law, but this is different in principle from the
exercise of dictatorship to suppress enemies of the people. What applies
among the people is democratic centralism.

Our Constitution lays it down
that citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of
the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration, religious
belief, and so on. Our Constitution also provides that the organs of state
must practise democratic centralism, that they must rely on the masses and
that their personnel must serve the people. Our socialist democracy is
democracy in the broadest sense such as is not to be found in any capitalist
country. Our dictatorship is the people's democratic dictatorship led by the
working class and based on the worker-peasant alliance. That is to say,
democracy operates within the ranks of the people, while the working class,
uniting with all others enjoying civil rights, and in the first place with
the peasantry, enforces dictatorship over the reactionary classes and
elements and all those who resist socialist transformation and oppose
socialist construction. By civil rights, we mean, politically the rights of
freedom and democracy.

But this freedom is freedom with leadership and this democracy is democracy
under centralized guidance, not anarchy. Anarchy does not accord with the
interests or wishes of the people.

Certain people in our country were delighted by the events in Hungary.(1)
They hoped that something similar would happen in China, that thousands upon
thousands of people would demonstrate in the streets against the People's
Government. Their hopes ran counter to the interests of the masses and
therefore could not possibly win their support.

Deceived by domestic and
foreign counter-revolutionaries, a section of the people in Hungary made the
mistake of resorting to acts of violence against the People's Government,
with the result that both the state and the people suffered. The damage done
to the country's economy in a few weeks of rioting will take a long time to
repair. There are other people in our country who wavered on the question of
the Hungarian events because they were ignorant of the real state of affairs
in the world.

They think that there is too little freedom under our people's
democracy and that there is more freedom under Western parliamentary
democracy. They ask for a two-party system as in the West, with one party in
office and the other out of office. But this so-called two-party system is
nothing but a device for maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; it
can never guarantee freedom to the working people. As a matter of fact,
freedom and democracy do not exist in the abstract, only in the concrete.

In
a society rent by class struggle, if there is freedom for the exploiting
classes to exploit the working people, there is no freedom for the working
people not to be exploited, and if there is democracy for the bourgeoisie,
there is no democracy for the proletariat and other working people. The
legal existence of the Communist Party is tolerated in some capitalist
countries, but only to the extent that it does not endanger the fundamental
interests of the bourgeoisie; it is not tolerated beyond that.

Those who
demand freedom and democracy in the abstract regard democracy as an end and
not a means. Democracy sometimes seems to be an end, but it is in fact only
a means. Marxism teaches us that democracy is part of the superstructure and
belongs to the category of politics. That is to say in the last analysis, it
serves the economic base.

The same is true of freedom. Both democracy and
freedom are relative, not absolute, and they come into being and develop in
specific historical conditions. Within the ranks of the people democracy is
correlative with centralism, and freedom with discipline. They are the two
opposites of a single entity, contradictory as well as united, and we should
not one sidedly emphasize one to the denial of the other.

Within the ranks of
the people, we cannot do without freedom, nor can we do without discipline;
we cannot do without democracy, nor can we do without centralism. This unity
of democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline, constitutes our
democratic centralism. Under this system, the people enjoy extensive
democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have to keep within the
bounds of socialist discipline. All this is well understood by the broad
masses of the people.

In advocating freedom with leadership and democracy under centralized
guidance, we in no way mean that coercive measures should be taken to settle
ideological questions or questions involving the distinction between right
and wrong among the people. All attempts to use administrative orders or
coercive measures to settle ideological questions or questions of right and
wrong are not only ineffective but harmful. We cannot abolish religion by
administrative decree or force people not to believe in it. We cannot compel
people to give up idealism, any more than we can force them to believe in
Marxism.

The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or
controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the
method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by
the method of coercion or repression. To be able to carry on their
production and studies effectively and to arrange their lives properly, the
people want their government and those in charge of production and of
cultural and educational organizations to issue appropriate orders of an
obligatory nature. It is common sense that the maintenance of public order
would be impossible without such administrative regulations.

Administrative
orders and the method of persuasion and education complement each other in
resolving contradictions among the people. Even administrative regulations
for the maintenance of public order must be accompanied by persuasion and
education, for in many cases regulations alone will not work.

This democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people was
epitomized in 1942 in the formula "unity, criticism, unity". To elaborate,
it means starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions
through criticism or struggle and arriving at a new unity on a new basis. In
our experience this is the correct method of resolving contradictions among
the people. In 1942 we used it to resolve contradictions inside the
Communist Party, namely, the contradictions between the dogmatists and the
great majority of the membership, and between dogmatism and Marxism.

The
"Left" dogmatists had resorted to the method of "ruthless struggle and
merciless blows" in inner-Party struggle. This method was incorrect. In
criticizing "Left" dogmatism, we discarded this old method and adopted a new
one, that is, one of starting from the desire for unity, distinguishing
between right and wrong through criticism or struggle and arriving at a new
unity on a new basis. This was the method used in the rectification movement
of 1942.

Thus within a few years, by the time the Chinese Communist Party
held its Seventh National Congress in 1945, unity was achieved throughout
the Party, and as a consequence the great victory of the people's revolution
was won. The essential thing is to start from the desire for unity. For
without this desire for unity, the struggle is certain to get out of hand.
Wouldn't this be the same as "ruthless struggle and merciless blows"? And
what Party unity would there be left? It was this very experience that led
us to the formula: "unity, criticism unity." Or, in other words, "learn from
past mistakes to avoid future ones and cure the sickness to save the
patient". We extended this method beyond our Party.

We applied it with great
success in the anti-Japanese base areas in dealing with the relations
between the leadership and the masses, between the army and the people,
between officers and men, between the different units of the army, and
between the different groups of cadres. The use of this method can be traced
back to still earlier times in our Party's history. It has been used ever
since the building of our revolutionary armed forces and base areas in the
south in l927 to deal with the relations between the Party and the masses,
between the army and the people, between officers and men, and other
relations among the people.

The only difference is that during the anti-
Japanese war, we employed this method with much greater consciousness of
purpose. And since the liberation of the whole country, we have employed
this same method of "unity, criticism, unity" in our relations with the
democratic parties and with industrial and commercial circles. Our task now
i6 to continue to extend and make still better use of this method throughout
the ranks of the people; we want all our factories, co-operatives, business
establishments, schools government offices and public organizations, in a
word, all our six hundred million people, to use it in resolving
contradictions among ourselves.

In ordinary circumstances, contradictions among the people are not
antagonistic. But if they are not handled properly, or if we relax our
vigilance and lower our guard, antagonism may arise. In a socialist country,
a development of this kind is usually only a localized and temporary
phenomenon. The reason is that the system of exploitation of man by man has
been abolished and the interests of the people are basically the same. The
antagonistic actions which took place on a fairly wide scale during the
Hungarian events were the result of the operations of both domestic and
foreign counter-revolutionary elements. This, too, was a temporary, though
special, phenomenon. It was a case of reactionaries inside a socialist
country, in league with the imperialists, attempting to achieve their
conspiratorial aims by taking advantage of contradictions among the people
to foment dissension and stir up disorder. This lesson of the Hungarian
events merits attention.

Many people seem to think that the question of using democratic methods to
resolve contradictions among the people is a new one. Actually it is not.
Marxists have always held that the cause of the proletariat must depend on
the masses of the people and that Communists must use the democratic method
of persuasion and education when working among the labouring people and must
on no account resort to commandism or coercion.

The Chinese Communist Party
faithfully adheres to this Marxist-Leninist principle. It has been our
consistent view that, under the people's democratic dictatorship, two
different methods, one dictatorial and the other democratic, should be used
to resolve the two different kinds of contradictions--those between
ourselves and the enemy and those among the people.

This idea has been
explained again and again in our Party documents and in speeches by many
responsible Party leaders. In my article "On the People's Democratic
Dictatorship" written in 1949, I said, "The combination of these two
aspects, democracy for the people and dictatorship over the reactionaries,
is the people's democratic dictatorship." I also pointed out that, in order
to settle problems within the ranks of the people, "the method we employ is
democratic, the method of persuasion, not of compulsion". Again, in
addressing the Second Session of the National Committee of the People's
Political Consultative Conference in June 1950, I said:

"The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods. In regard to the
enemy, it uses the method of dictatorship, in other words, it forbids them
to take part in political activity for as long a period of time as is
necessary and it compels them to obey the laws of the People's Government,
to work and to transform themselves into new people through labour. In
regard to the people, on the contrary, it uses not the compulsory but the
democratic method, in other words, it allows the people to take part in
political activities and uses the democratic method of education and
persuasion instead of compelling them to do this or that. This education is
self-education within the ranks of the people, and the basic method of
self-education is criticism and self-criticism.

Thus, on many occasions we
have discussed the use of the democratic method for resolving contradictions
among the people; furthermore, we have in the main applied it in our work,
and many cadres and many other people are familiar with it in practice. Why
then do some people now feel that it is a new issue? Because, in the past,
the struggle between ourselves and the enemy, both internal and external,
was most acute, and contradictions among the people therefore did not
attract as much attention as they do today."

Quite a few people fail to make a clear distinction between these two
different types of contradictions--those between ourselves and the enemy and
those among the people--and are prone to confuse the two. It must be
admitted that it is sometimes quite easy to do so. We have had instances of
such confusion in our work in the past. In the course of suppressing
counter-revolutionaries, good people were sometimes mistaken for bad, and
such things still happen today. We are able to keep our mistakes within
bounds because it has been our policy to draw a sharp line between ourselves
and the enemy and to rectify mistakes whenever discovered.

Marxist philosophy holds that the law of the unity of opposites is the
fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in
the natural world, in human society, or in man's thinking. Between the
opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is
this that impels things to move and change. Contradictions exist everywhere,
but they differ in accordance with the different nature of different things.
In any given phenomenon or thing, the unity of opposites is conditional,
temporary and transitory, and hence relative, whereas the struggle of
opposites is absolute.

Lenin gave a very clear exposition of this law. In
our country, a growing number of people have come to understand it. For many
people, however, acceptance of this law is one thing, and its application in
examining and dealing with problems is quite another. Many dare not openly
admit that contradictions still exist among the people of our country,
although it is these very contradictions that are pushing our society
forward.

Many do not admit that contradictions continue to exist in a
socialist society, with the result that they are handicapped and passive
when confronted with social contradictions; they do not understand that
socialist society will grow more united and consolidated through the
ceaseless process of the correct handling and resolving of contradictions.
For this reason, we need to explain things to our people, and to our cadres
in the first place, in order to help them understand the contradictions in a
socialist society and learn to use correct methods for handling these
contradictions.

Contradictions in a socialist society are fundamentally different from those
in the old societies, such as capitalist society. In capitalist society
contradictions find expression in acute antagonisms and conflicts, in sharp
class struggle; they cannot be resolved by the capitalist system itself and
can only be resolved by socialist revolution. On the contrary, the case is
different with contradictions in socialist society, where they are not
antagonistic and can be resolved one after another by the socialist system
itself.

The basic contradictions in socialist society are still those between the
relations of production and the productive forces and between the
superstructure and the economic base. However, they are fundamentally
different in character and have different features from the contradictions
between the relations of production and the productive forces and between
the superstructure and the economic base in the old societies.

The present
social system of our country is far superior to that of the old days. If it
were not so, the old system would not have been overthrown and the new
system could not have been established. In saying that socialist relations
of production are better suited to the development of the productive forces
than are the old relations of production, we mean that they permit the
productive forces to develop at a speed unattainable in the old society, so
that production can expand steadily to meet the constantly growing needs of
the people step by step. Under the rule of imperialism, feudalism and
bureaucrat-capitalism, the productive forces of old China developed very
slowly.

For more than fifty years before liberation, China produced only a
few tens of thousands of tons of steel a year, not counting the output of
the northeastern provinces. If these provinces are included, the peak annual
steel output only amounted to just over 900,000 tons. In 1949, national
steel output was only a little over 100,000 tons. Yet now, a mere seven
years after the liberation of our country, steel output already exceeds four
million tons. In old China, there was hardly any machine-building industry,
to say nothing of automobile and aviation industries; now, we have all
three. When the people overthrew the rule of imperialism, feudalism and
bureaucrat-capitalism, many were not clear as to which way China should
head--towards capitalism or towards socialism. Facts have now provided the
answer: only socialism can save China. The socialist system has promoted the
rapid development of the productive forces of our country; this is a fact
even our enemies abroad have had to acknowledge.

But our socialist system has only just been set up; it is not yet fully
established or fully consolidated. In joint state-private industrial and
commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed rate of interest
on their capital,(2) that is to say, exploitation still exists. So far as
ownership is concerned, these enterprises are not yet completely socialist
in character. Some of our agricultural and handicraft producers'
co-operatives are still semi- socialist, while even in the fully socialist
co-operatives certain problems of ownership remain to be solved. Relations
between production and exchange in accordance with socialist principles are
still being gradually established in various departments of our economy, and
more and more appropriate forms are being sought.

To decide the proper ratio
between accumulation and consumption within each of the two sectors of
socialist economy--that in which the means of production are owned by the
whole people and that in which the means of production are collectively
owned--and also between the two sectors themselves is a complicated problem
for which it is not easy to work out a perfectly rational solution all at
once. To sum up, socialist relations of production have been established and
are in harmony with the growth of the productive forces, but they are still
far from perfect, and this imperfection stands in contradiction to the
growth of the productive forces. Apart from harmony as well as contradiction
between the relations of production and the developing productive forces,
there is harmony as well as contradiction between the superstructure and the
economic base.

The superstructure consisting of the state system and laws of
the people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist ideology guided by
Marxism- Leninism plays a positive role in facilitating the victory of
socialist transformation and the establishment of the socialist organization
of labour; it is suited to the socialist economic base, that is, to
socialist relations of production. But survivals of bourgeois ideology,
certain bureaucratic ways of doing things in our state organs and defects in
certain links in our state institutions are in contradiction with the
socialist economic base.

We must continue to resolve all such contradictions
in the light of our specific conditions. Of course, new problems will emerge
as these contradictions are resolved. And further efforts will be required
to resolve the new contradictions. For instance, a constant process of
readjustment through state planning is needed to deal with the contradiction
between production and the needs of society, which will long remain as an
objective reality. Every year our country draws up an economic plan in order
to establish a proper ratio between accumulation and consumption and achieve
a balance between production and needs.

Balance is nothing but a temporary,
relative unity of opposites. By the end of each year, this balance, taken as
a whole, is upset by the struggle of opposites; the unity undergoes a
change, balance becomes imbalance, unity becomes disunity, and once again it
is necessary to work out a balance and unity for the next year. Herein lies
the superiority of our planned economy. As a matter of fact, this balance,
this unity, is partially upset every month or every quarter, and partial
readjustments are called for. Sometimes, contradictions arise and the
balance is upset because our subjective arrangements do not correspond to
objective reality; this is what we call making a mistake. The ceaseless
emergence and ceaseless resolution of contradictions is the dialectical law
of the development of things.

Today, matters stand as follows. The large-scale and turbulent class
struggles of the masses characteristic of the previous revolutionary periods
have in the main ended, but class struggle is by no means entirely over.
While welcoming the new system, the broad masses of the people are not yet
quite accustomed to it. Government workers are not sufficiently experienced
and have to undertake further study and exploration of specific policies.

In
other words, time is needed for our socialist system to become established
and consolidated, for the masses to become accustomed to the new system, and
for the government workers to learn and ac quire experience. It is therefore
imperative at this juncture that we should raise the question of
distinguishing contradictions among the people from those between ourselves
and the enemy, as well as the question of the correct handling of
contradictions among the people, so as to unite the people of all
nationalities in our country for a new battle, the battle against nature, to
develop our economy and culture, to help the whole nation to traverse this
period of transition fairly smoothly, to consolidate our new system and
build up our new state.

II. THE QUESTION OF THE SUPPRESSION OF COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES

The question of suppressing counter-revolutionaries is one of struggle
between ourselves and the enemy, an antagonistic contradiction. Among the
people, there are some who see this question in a somewhat different light.
Two kinds of persons hold views different from ours. Those with a Rightist
way of thinking make no distinction between ourselves and the enemy and take
the enemy for our own people. They regard as friends the very persons whom
the broad masses regard as enemies. Those with a "Left" way of thinking
magnify contradictions between ourselves and the enemy to such an extent
that they take certain contradictions among the people for contradictions
with the enemy, and regard as counter-revolutionaries persons who are not
really counterrevolutionaries. Both these views are wrong. Neither can lead
to the correct handling of the question of suppressing
counter-revolutionaries or to a correct assessment of this work.

To form a correct evaluation of our work in suppressing
counter-revolutionaries, let us see what effect the Hungarian events have
had in China. After their occurrence there was some unrest among a section
of our intellectuals, but there were no squalls. Why? One reason, it must be
said, is that we had succeeded in suppressing the counter- revolutionaries
quite thoroughly.

Of course, the consolidation of our state is not primarily due to the
suppression of counter-revolution. It is due primarily to the fact that we
have a Communist Party, a Liberation Army and a working people tempered in
decades of revolutionary struggle. Our Party and our armed forces are rooted
in the masses; they have been tempered in the flames of a protracted
revolution; they have the capacity to fight. Our People's Republic was not
built overnight, but developed step by step out of the revolutionary base
areas.

Some democratic personages have also been tempered in the struggle in
varying degrees, and they have gone through troubled times together with us.
Some intellectuals were tempered in the struggles against imperialism and
reaction; since liberation many of them have gone through a process of
ideological remoulding aimed at enabling them to distinguish clearly between
ourselves and the enemy.

In addition, the consolidation of our state is due
to the fact that our economic measures are basically sound, that the
people's livelihood is secure and is steadily improving, that our policies
towards the national bourgeoisie and other classes are correct, and so on.
Nevertheless, our success in suppressing counter-revolutionaries is
undoubtedly an important reason for the consolidation of our state. For all
these reasons, with few exceptions our college students are patriotic and
support socialism, although many of them come from other than working class
families; they did not give way to unrest during the Hungarian events. The
same was true of the national bourgeoisie, to say nothing of the basic
masses --the workers and peasants.

After liberation, we rooted out a number of counterrevolutionaries. Some
were sentenced to death for major crimes. This was absolutely necessary, it
was the demand of the people, it was done to free the masses from long years
of oppression by the counter-revolutionaries and all kinds of local tyrants;
in other words, it was done to release the productive forces. If we had not
done so, the masses would not have been able to lift their heads. Since
1956, however, there has been a radical change in the situation.

In the
country as a whole, the bulk of the counter-revolutionaries have been
cleared out. Our basic task has changed from unfettering the productive
forces to protecting and expanding them in the context of the new relations
of production. Because of their failure to understand that our present
policy fits the present situation and our past policy fitted the past
situation, some people want to make use of the present policy to reverse
decisions on past cases and to deny the great success we achieved in
suppressing counter-revolution. This is quite wrong, and the masses will not
permit it.

Successes were the main thing in our work of suppressing
counter-revolutionaries, but there were also mistakes. In some cases there
were excesses and in others counterrevolutionaries slipped through our net.
Our policy is: "Counter-revolutionaries must be suppressed wherever found,
mistakes must be corrected whenever discovered." Our line in the work of
suppressing counter-revolution is the mass line. Of course, even with the
mass line mistakes may still occur in our work, but they will be fewer and
easier to correct. The masses gain experience through struggle. From what is
done correctly they learn how things should be done. From what is done wrong
they learn useful lessons as to how mistakes should be avoided.

Wherever mistakes have been discovered in the work of suppressing
counter-revolutionaries, steps have been or are being taken to correct them.
Those not yet discovered will be corrected as soon as they come to light.
Decisions on exoneration or rehabilitation should be made known as widely as
were the original wrong decisions.

I propose that a comprehensive review of
the work of suppressing counterrevolutionaries be made this year or next to
sum up experience and encourage standing up for what is right and combating
what is evil.(3_ Nationally, this review should be in the charge of the
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and the Standing
Committee of the People's Political Consultative Conference, and locally, in
the charge of the provincial and municipal people's councils and the
committees of the People's Political Consultative Conference. In this
review, we must help the large numbers of cadres and activists involved in
the work, and not pour cold water on them. It would not be right to dampen
their spirits. Nonetheless, wrongs must be righted when they are discovered.

This must be the attitude of all the public security organs, the
procurators' offices and the judicial departments, prisons and agencies
charged with the reform of criminals through labour. We hope that wherever
possible members of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
and of the People's Political Consultative Conference and the people's
deputies will take part in this review. This will be of help in perfecting
our legal system and in dealing correctly with counter-revolutionaries and
other criminals.

The present situation with regard to counter-revolutionaries can be
described in these words: There still are counterrevolutionaries, but not
many. In the first place, there still are counter-revolutionaries. Some
people say that there aren't any more and all is at peace and that we can
therefore lay our heads on our pillows and just drop off to sleep. But this
is not the way things are. The fact is, there still are
counter-revolutionaries (of course, that is not to say you'll find them
everywhere and in every organization), and we must continue to fight them.
It must be understood that the hidden counter-revolutionaries still at large
will not take things lying down, but will certainly seize every opportunity
to make trouble.

The U.S. imperialists and the Chiang Kai-shek clique are
constantly sending in secret agents to carry on disruptive activities. Even
after all the existing counter-revolutionaries have been combed out, new
ones may emerge. If we drop our guard, we shall be badly fooled and shall
suffer severely. Counter- revolutionaries must be rooted out with a firm
hand wherever they are found making trouble. But, taking the country as a
whole there are certainly not many counter-revolutionaries. It would be
wrong to say that there are still large numbers of counter-revolutionaries
in China. Acceptance of that view would also end up in a mess.

III. THE QUESTION OF AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION

We have a rural population of over five hundred million, so the situation of
our peasants has a most important bearing on the development of our economy
and the consolidation of our state power. In my view, the situation is
basically sound. Agricultural co-operatives have been successfully
organized, and this has resolved the great contradiction in our country
between socialist industrialization and individual peasant farming. As the
co-operative transformation of agriculture was completed so rapidly, some
people were worried and wondered whether something untoward might occur.

There are indeed some faults but, fortunately, they are not serious, and on
the whole the movement is healthy. The peasants are working with a will and
last year, despite the worst floods, droughts and typhoons in years, there
was an increase in grain output. Now there are people who are stirring up a
miniature typhoon: they are grousing that cooperative farming is no good,
that it is not superior to individual farming.

Is agricultural co-operation
superior or not? Among the documents distributed at today's meeting is one
about the Wang Kuo-fan Co-operative(4) in Tsunhua County, Hopei Province,
which I suggest you read. This co- operative is situated in a hilly region
which was very poor in the past and which for a number of years depended on
relief grain from the People's Government. When the co- operative was first
set up in 1953, people called it the "paupers' co-op". But it has become
better off year by year, and now, after four years of hard struggle, most of
its households have reserves of grain. What this co-operative could do,
other co-operatives should also be able to do under normal conditions in the
same period or slightly longer. Clearly then there are no grounds for saying
that something has gone wrong with agricultural co-operation.

It is also clear that it takes hard struggle to build up co- operatives. New
things always have to overcome difficulties and setbacks as they grow. It is
sheer fantasy to imagine that building socialism is all plain sailing and
easy success, without difficulties and setbacks or the exertion of
tremendous efforts.

Who are the active supporters of the co-operatives? The overwhelming
majority of the poor peasants and lower middle peasants, who account for
more than 70 per cent of the rural population. Most of the rest are also
hopeful about the co- operatives. Only a very small minority are really
dissatisfied. Failing to analyse this situation, quite a number of persons
have taken part of the picture for the whole, without making an overall
examination of the achievements and shortcomings of the co-operatives and
the causes of these shortcomings; thus a miniature typhoon has started up
among some people, who argue that the co- operatives are not superior.

How long will it take to consolidate the co-operatives or end these
arguments about their not being superior? Judging from the experience of
many co-operatives, it will probably take five years or a little longer. As
most of our co- operatives are only a little over a year old, it would be
unreasonable to ask too much of them. In my view, we will be doing well
enough if the co-operatives can be consolidated during the Second Five-Year
Plan after being established in the First.

The co-operatives are now in the process of gradual consolidation. Certain
contradictions remain to be resolved such as those between the state and the
co-operatives and those among and within the co-operatives themselves.

We must give constant attention to problems of production and distribution
as the way to resolve these contradictions Take the question of production.
The co-operative economy must be subject to the unified economic planning of
the state, while retaining a certain leeway and independence of action that
are not incompatible with the state's unified plan or with its policies,
laws and regulations. At the same time, every household in a co-operative
must comply with the overall plan of the co-operative or production team to
which it belongs, apart from any appropriate plans it makes for itself in
regard to land allotted for private use and to other economic undertakings
left to private management.

On the question of the distribution of income,
we must take account of the interests of the state, the collective and the
individual. We must properly handle the three-way relationship between the
state agricultural tax, the cooperative's accumulation fund and the
peasants' personal income, and take constant care to make readjustments so
as to resolve contradictions between them. Accumulation is essential both
for the state and for the co-operative, but in neither case should it be
excessive. We should do everything possible to enable the peasants to raise
their personal incomes year by year in normal years on the basis of
increased production.

Many people say that the peasants lead a hard life. Is this true? In one
sense it is. That is to say, because the imperialists and their agents
oppressed and exploited us for over a century, ours is an impoverished
country and the standard of living not only of our peasants but of our
workers and intellectuals is still low. We will need several decades of
intensive effort to raise the standard of living of our entire people step
by step. In this sense, "hard" is the right word. But in another sense, it
is not true. We refer to the allegation that, in the seven years since
liberation, improvements have taken place only in the life of the workers
and not in that of the peasants. As a matter of fact, with very few
exceptions, there has been some improvement in the peasants' life as well as
in that of the workers.

Since liberation, the peasants have been free from
landlord exploitation and their production has increased year by year. Take
grain crops. In 1949, the country's output was only something over 210,000
million catties. By 1956, it had risen to something over 360,000 million
catties, an increase of nearly 150,000 million catties. The state
agricultural tax is not heavy, only amounting to some 30,000 million catties
a year. State purchases of grain from the peasants at standard prices only
amount to something over 50,000 million catties a year. These two items
together total over 80,000 million catties. Furthermore, more than half this
grain is sold back to the villages and nearby towns. Obviously no one can
say that there has been no improvement in the life of the peasants.

We are
preparing to stabilize the total annual amount of the grain tax plus the
grain purchased by the state at approximately 80,000 million catties in the
next few years, so as to help agriculture to develop and the co-operatives
to become consolidated. In this way, the' small number of grain-deficient
households still found in the countryside will cease to go short, and all
peasant households, with the exception of some growing industrial crops,
will have grain reserves or at least become self-sufficient; there will be
no more poor peasants and the standard of living of the entire peasantry
will reach or surpass the middle peasant level. It is not right simply to
compare a peasant's average annual income with a worker's and draw the
conclusion that one is too low and the other too high.

The productivity of
the workers is much higher than that of the peasants, while the latter's
cost of living is much lower than that of workers in the cities, so the
workers cannot be said to have received special favours from the state.
However, the wages of a small number of workers and some government
personnel are a bit too high, and the peasants have reason to be
dissatisfied with this, so it is necessary to make certain appropriate
readjustments according to specific circumstances.

IV. THE QUESTION OF INDUSTRIALISTS AND MERCHANTS

With regard to the transformation of our social system, the year 1956 saw
the conversion of privately owned industrial and commercial enterprises into
joint state-private enterprises, in addition to the organization of co-
operatives in agriculture and handicrafts. The speed and smoothness of this
conversion were closely related to our treatment of the contradiction
between the working class and the national bourgeoisie as a contradiction
among the people. Has this class contradiction been completely resolved? No,
not yet. That will still take a considerable period of time. However, some
people say the capitalists have been so remoulded that they are now not much
different from the workers and that further remoulding is unnecessary.
Others go so far as to say that the capitalists are now even a little better
than the workers. Still others ask, if remoulding is necessary, why doesn't
the working class undergo remoulding? Are these opinions correct? Of course
not.

In the building of a socialist society, everybody needs remoulding--the
exploiters and also the working people. Who says the working class does not
need it? Of course, the remoulding of the exploiters is qualitatively
different from that of the working people, and the two must not be confused.
The working class remoulds the whole of society in class struggle and in the
struggle against nature, and at the same time remoulds itself. It must
ceaselessly learn in the course of its work and overcome its shortcomings
step by step, and must never stop doing so. Take those of us who are present
here for example. Many of us make some progress each year; that is to say,
we are being remoulded each year. For myself, I had all sorts of non-Marxist
ideas before, and it was only later that I embraced Marxism. I learned a
little Marxism from books and so made an initial remoulding of my ideas, but
it was mainly through taking part in the class struggle over the years that
I came to be remoulded. And I must continue to learn if I am to make further
progress, or otherwise I shall lag behind. Can the capitalists be so good
that they need no more remoulding?

Some people contend that the Chinese bourgeoisie no longer has two sides to
its character, but only one side. Is this true? No. While members of the
bourgeoisie have become administrative personnel in joint state-private
enterprises and are being transformed from exploiters into working people
living by their own labour, they still receive a fixed rate of interest on
their share of capital in the joint enterprises, that is, they have not yet
cut themselves loose from the roots of exploitation. Between them and the
working class there is still a considerable gap in ideology, sentiments and
habits of life. How is it possible to say that they no longer have two sides
to their character? Even when they stop receiving their fixed interest
payments and the "bourgeois" label is removed, they will still need
ideological remoulding for quite some time. If the bourgeoisie no longer had
a dual character as these people maintain, then the capitalists would no
longer have the task of studying and of remoulding themselves.

It must be said that this view does not tally either with the actual
situation of our industrialists and merchants or with what most of them
want. During the past few years, most of them have been willing to study and
have made marked progress. Their thorough remoulding can be achieved only in
the course of work; they should work together with the staff and workers in
the enterprises, and regard the enterprises as the chief places in which to
remould themselves. But it is also important for them to change some of
their old views through study. Such study should be on a voluntary basis.
When they return to the enterprises after attending study groups for some
weeks, many industrialists and merchants find that they have more of a
common language with the workers and representatives of the state
shareholdings, and so there are better possibilities for working together.
They know from personal experience that it is good for them to keep on
studying and remoulding themselves. The idea that study and remoulding are
not necessary reflects the views not of the majority of industrialists and
merchants but only of a small number.

V. THE QUESTION OF THE INTELLECTUALS.

The contradictions within the ranks of the people in our country also find
expression among the intellectuals. The several million intellectuals who
worked for the old society have come to serve the new society, and the
question that now arises is how they can fit in with the needs of the new
society and how we can help them to do so. This, too, is a contradiction
among the people.

Most of our intellectuals have made marked progress during the last seven
years. They have expressed themselves in favour of the socialist system.
Many are diligently studying Marxism, and some have become communists. The
latter, though small in number, are steadily growing. Of course, there are
still some intellectuals who are skeptical about socialism or who do not
approve of it, but they are a minority.

China needs the services of as many intellectuals as possible for the
colossal task of socialist construction. We should trust the intellectuals
who are really willing to serve the cause of socialism, and should radically
improve our relations with them and help them solve any problems requiring
solution, so that they can give full play to their talents. Many of our
comrades are not good at uniting with intellectuals. They are too crude in
dealing with them lack respect for their work, and interfere in certain
matters in scientific and cultural work where interference is unwarranted.
We must do away with all such shortcomings.

The mass of intellectuals have made some progress, but they should not be
complacent. They must continue to remould themselves, gradually shed their
bourgeois world outlook and acquire the proletarian, communist world outlook
so that they can fully fit in with the needs of the new society and unite
with the workers and peasants. This change in world outlook is something
fundamental, and up till now most of our intellectuals cannot be said to
have accomplished it.

We hope that they will continue to make progress and
that, in the course of work and study, they will gradually acquire the
communist world outlook, get a better grasp of Marxism- Leninism and become
integrated with the workers and peasants. We hope they will not stop
halfway, or, what is worse, slip back, for there will be no future for them
in going backwards.

Since our country's social system has changed and the
economic base of bourgeois ideology has in the main been destroyed, not only
is it necessary for large numbers of our intellectuals to change their world
outlook, but they also have the possibility of doing so. But a thorough
change in world outlook takes a very long time, and we should work patiently
and not be impetuous. Actually, there are bound to be some who will always
be ideologically reluctant to accept Marxism-Leninism and communism. We
should not be too exacting in what we expect of them; as long as they comply
with the requirements of the state and engage in legitimate pursuits, we
should give them opportunities for suitable work.

Recently there has been a falling off in ideological and political work
among students and intellectuals, and some unhealthy tendencies have
appeared. Some people seem to think that there is no longer any need to
concern oneself with politics or with the future of the motherland and the
ideals of mankind. It seems as if Marxism was once all the rage but is
currently not so much in fashion. To counter these tendencies, we must
strengthen our ideological and political work. Both students and
intellectuals should study hard.

In addition to the study of their
specialized subjects, they must make progress both ideologically and
politically, which means that they should study Marxism, current events and
political problems. Not to have a correct political point of view is like
having no soul. The ideological remoulding carried on in the past was
necessary and has yielded positive results. But it was carried on in a
somewhat rough and ready fashion and the feelings of some people were
hurt--this was not good.

We must avoid such shortcomings in future. All
departments and organizations should shoulder their responsibilities in
ideological and political work. This applies to the Communist Party, the
Youth League, government departments in charge of this work, and especially
to heads of educational institutions and teachers. Our educational policy
must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally,
intellectually and physically and become a well-educated worker imbued with
socialist consciousness.

We must spread the idea of building our country
through industriousness and thrift. We must help all our young people to
understand that ours is still a very poor country, that we cannot change
this situation radically in a short time, and that only through the united
efforts of our younger generation and all our people, working with their own
hands, can China be made strong and prosperous within a period of several
decades. The establishment of our socialist system has opened the road
leading to the ideal society of the future, but to translate this ideal into
reality needs hard work. Some of our young people think that everything
ought to be perfect once a socialist society is established and that they
should be able to enjoy a happy life ready-made, without working for it.
This is unrealistic.

VI. THE QUESTION OF THE MINORITY NATIONALITIES

The minority nationalities in our country number more than thirty million
people. Although they constitute only 6 per cent of the total population,
they inhabit extensive regions which altogether comprise 50 to 60 per cent
of China's total area. It is imperative to foster good relations between the
Han people and the minority nationalities. The key to this question lies in
overcoming Han chauvinism. At the same time, efforts should also be made to
overcome local nationalism, wherever it exists among the minority
nationalities. Both Han chauvinism and local nationalism are harmful to the
unity of the nationalities; they represent a specific contradiction among
the people which should be overcome.

We have already done some work in this
sphere. In most areas inhabited by the minority nationalities, there has
been a big improvement in relations among the nationalities, but a number of
problems remain to be solved. In some areas, both Han chauvinism and local
nationalism still exist to a serious degree, and this demands full
attention. As a result of the efforts of the people of all nationalities
over the last few years, democratic reforms and socialist transformation
have in the main been completed in most of the minority nationality areas.
Democratic reforms have not yet been carried out in Tibet because conditions
are not ripe for them.

According to the seventeen-point agreement reached
between the Central People's Government and the local government of Tibet,
the reform of the social system must be carried out, but the timing can only
be decided by the great majority of the people of Tibet and their leading
public figures when they consider it practicable, and one should not be
impatient. It has now been decided not to proceed with democratic reforms in
Tibet during the period of the Second Five-Year Plan. Whether they will be
proceeded with in the period of the Third Five-Year Plan can only be decided
in the light of the situation at that time.(5)

VII. OVERALL PLANNING AND PROPER ARRANGEMENT

By overall planning we mean planning which takes into consideration the
interests of the 600 million people of our country. In drawing up plans,
handling affairs or thinking over problems, we must proceed from the fact
that China has a population of 600 million people, and we must never forget
this fact. Why do we make a point of this? Is it possible that there are
people who are still unaware that we have a population of 600 million? Yes,
everyone knows this, but when it comes to actual practice, some people
forget all about it and act as though the fewer the people, the smaller the
circle, the better. Those who have this "small circle" mentality resist the
idea of bringing all positive factors into play, of uniting with everyone
that can be united with, and of doing everything possible to turn negative
factors into positive ones so as to serve the great cause of building a
socialist society.

I hope these people will take a wider view and really
recognize that we have a population of 600 million, that this is an
objective fact, and that it is an asset. Our large population is a good
thing, but of course it also involves certain difficulties. Construction is
going ahead vigorously on all fronts and very successfully too, but in the
present transitional period of tremendous social change there are still many
difficult problems. Progress and at the same time difficulties--this is a
contradiction. However, not only should contradictions be resolved, but they
definitely can be. Our guiding principle is overall planning and proper
arrangement.

Whatever the problem--whether it concerns food, natural
calamities, employment, education, the intellectuals, the united front of
all patriotic forces, the minority nationalities, or anything else--we must
always proceed from the standpoint of overall planning which takes the whole
people into consideration and must make proper arrangements, after
consultation with all circles concerned in the light of the specific
possibilities of the particular time and place. On no account should we
complain that there are too many people, that they are backward, that things
are troublesome and hard to handle, and so shut the problems out. Does this
mean that the government alone must take care of everyone and everything? Of
course not. In many cases, they can be left to the care of the public
organizations or of the masses directly--both are quite capable of devising
many good ways of handling things. This also comes within the scope of the
principle of overall planning and proper arrangement. We should give
guidance to the public organizations and the masses of the people everywhere
in this respect.

VIII. ON "LET A HUNDRED FLOWERS BLOSSOM, LET A HUNDRED SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
CONTEND" AND "LONG-TERM COEXlSTENCE AND MUTUAL SUPERVISION"

"Let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend"
and "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision"--how did these slogans
come to be put forward? They were put forward in the light of China's
specific conditions, on the basis of the recognition that various kinds of
contradictions still exist in socialist society, and in response to the
country's urgent need to speed up its economic and cultural development.

Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend
is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences and a
flourishing socialist culture in our land. Different forms and styles in art
should develop freely and different schools in science should contend
freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and science if
administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of art or
school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in the
arts and sciences should be settled through free discussion in artistic and
scientific circles and through practical work in these fields.

They should
not be settled in summary fashion. A period of trial is often needed to
determine whether something is right or wrong. Throughout history, new and
correct things have often failed at the outset to win recognition from the
majority of people and have had to develop by twists and turns in struggle.
Often correct and good things have first been regarded not as fragrant
flowers but as poisonous weeds. Copernicus' theory of the solar system and
Darwin's theory of evolution were once dismissed as erroneous and had to win
through over bitter opposition.

Chinese history offers many similar
examples. In a socialist society, conditions for the growth of the new are
radically different from and far superior to those in the old society.
Nevertheless, it still often happens that new, rising forces are held back
and rational proposals constricted. Moreover, the growth of new things may
be hindered in the absence of deliberate suppression simply through lack of
discernment. It is therefore necessary to be careful about questions of
right and wrong in the arts and sciences, to encourage free discussion and
avoid hasty conclusions. We believe that such an attitude can help to ensure
a relatively smooth development of the arts and sciences.

Marxism, too, has developed through struggle. At the beginning, Marxism was
subjected to all kinds of attack and regarded as a poisonous weed. It is
still being attacked and is still regarded as a poisonous weed in many parts
of the world. In the socialist countries, it enjoys a different position.
But non-Marxist and, moreover, anti-Marxist ideologies exist even in these
countries. In China, although in the main socialist transformation has been
completed with respect to the system of ownership, and although the large-
scale and turbulent class struggles of the masses characteristic of the
previous revolutionary periods have in the main come to an end, there are
still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador classes, there is
still a bourgeoisie, and the remoulding of the petty bourgeoisie has only
just started.

The class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the
different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and
tortuous and at times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to
transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does the
bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism
or capitalism, is still not really settled.

Marxists are still a minority
among the entire population as well as among the intellectuals. Therefore,
Marxism must still develop through struggle. Marxism can develop only
through struggle, and not only is this true of the past and the present, it
is necessarily true of the future as well. What is correct invariably
develops in the course of struggle with what is wrong. The true, the good
and the beautiful always exist by contrast with the false, the evil and the
ugly, and grow in struggle with the latter. As soon as a wrong thing is
rejected and a particular truth accepted by mankind, new truths begin their
struggle with new errors. Such struggles will never end. This is the law of
development of truth and. naturally, of Marxism as well.

It will take a fairly long period of time to decide the issue in the
ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism in our country. The
reason is that the influence of the bourgeoisie and of the intellectuals who
come from the old society will remain in our country for a long time to
come, and so will their class ideology. If this is not understood, or is not
sufficiently understood, the gravest mistakes will be made and the necessity
of waging the struggle in the ideological field will be ignored.

Ideological
struggle is not like other forms of struggle. The only method to be used in
this struggle is that of painstaking reasoning and not crude coercion.
Today, socialism is in an advantageous position in the ideological struggle.
The main power of the state is in the hands of the working people led by the
proletariat.

The Communist Party is strong and its prestige stands high.
Although there are defects and mistakes in our work, every fair minded
person can see that we are loyal to the people, that we are both determined
and able to build up our motherland together with them, and that we have
already achieved great successes and will achieve still greater ones. The
vast majority of the bourgeoisie and intellectuals who come from the old
society are patriotic and are willing to serve their flourishing socialist
motherland; they know they will be helpless and have no bright future to
look forward to if they turn away from the socialist cause and from the
working people led by the Communist Party.

People may ask, since Marxism is accepted as the guiding ideology by the
majority of the people in our country, can it be criticized? Certainly it
can. Marxism is scientific truth and fears no criticism. If it did, and if
it could be overthrown by criticism, it would be worthless. In fact, aren't
the idealists criticizing Marxism every day and in every way? Aren't those
who harbour bourgeois and petty- bourgeois ideas and do not wish to
change--aren't they also criticizing Marxism in every way? Marxists should
not be afraid of criticism from any quarter.

Quite the contrary, they need
to temper and develop themselves and win new positions in the teeth of
criticism and in the storm and stress of struggle. Fighting against wrong
ideas is like being vaccinated--a man develops greater immunity from disease
as a result of vaccination. Plants raised in hot- houses are unlikely to be
sturdy. Carrying out the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a
hundred schools of thought contend will not weaken but strengthen the
leading position of Marxism in the ideological field.

What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable
counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned,
the matter is easy: we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech. But
incorrect ideas among the people are quite a different matter. Will it do to
ban such ideas and deny them any opportunity for expression? Certainly not.
It is not only futile but very harmful to use summary methods in dealing
with ideological questions among the people, with questions concerned with
man's mental world. You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas
will still be there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in
hot-houses without being exposed to the elements or immunized from disease,
they will not win out against erroneous ones. Therefore, it is only by
employing the method of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can
really foster correct ideas and overcome wrong ones, and that we can really
settle issues.

Inevitably, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will give expression to
their own ideologies. Inevitably, they will stubbornly express themselves on
political and ideological questions by every possible means. You cannot
expect them to do otherwise. We should not use the method of suppression and
prevent them from expressing themselves, but should allow them to do so and
at the same time argue with them and direct appropriate criticism at them.
We must undoubtedly criticize wrong ideas of every description.

It certainly
would not be right to refrain from criticism, look on while wrong ideas
spread unchecked and allow them to monopolize the field. Mistakes must be
criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such
criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be
used, but efforts should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is
needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic criticism
settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds of any kind, but we must
carefully distinguish between what is really a poisonous weed and what is
really a fragrant flower. Together with the masses of the people, we must
learn to differentiate carefully between the two and to use correct methods
to fight the poisonous weeds.

At the same time as we criticize dogmatism, we must direct our attention to
criticizing revisionism. Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois
trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The
revisionists the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too
attack "dogmatism". But what they are really attacking is the quintessence
of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try
to weaken the people's democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the
Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and
socialist construction. Even now, after the basic victory of the socialist
revolution in our country, there are a number of people who vainly hope to
restore the capitalist system and are fighting the working class on every
front, including the ideological one. And their right-hand men in this
struggle are the revisionists.

At first glance, the two slogans--let a hundred flowers blossom and let a
hundred schools of thought contend--have no class character; the proletariat
can turn them to account, and so can the bourgeoisie or other people. But
different classes, strata and social groups each have their own views on
what are fragrant flowers and what are poisonous weeds. What then, from the
point of view of the broad masses of the people, should be the criteria
today for distinguishing fragrant flowers from poisonous weeds? In the
political life of our people, how should right be distinguished from wrong
in one's words and actions? On the basis of the principles of our
Constitution, the will of the overwhelming majority of our people and the
common political positions which have been proclaimed on various occasions
by our political parties and groups, we consider that, broadly speaking, the
criteria should be as follows:

(1) Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people of
our various nationalities.

(2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to socialist transformation
and socialist construction.

(3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, the
people's democratic dictatorship.

(4) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, democratic
centralism.

(5) They should help to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the
leadership of the Communist Party

(6) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to international socialist
unity and the unity of the peace- loving people of the world.

Of these six criteria, the most important are the socialist path and the
leadership of the Party. These criteria are put forward not to hinder but to
foster the free discussion of questions among the people. Those who
disapprove of these criteria can still put forward their own views and argue
their case. However, since the majority of the people have clear-cut
criteria to go by, criticism and self-criticism can be conducted along
proper lines, and the criteria can be applied to people's words and actions
to determine whether they are right or wrong, whether they are fragrant
flowers or poisonous weeds. These are political criteria. Naturally, in
judging the validity of scientific theories or assessing the aesthetic value
of works of art, additional pertinent criteria are needed. But these six
political criteria are applicable to all activities in the arts and the
sciences. In a socialist country like ours can there possibly be any useful
scientific or artistic activity which runs counter to these political
criteria?

The views set out above are based on China's specific historical conditions.
Conditions vary in different socialist countries and with different
Communist Parties. Therefore we do not maintain that other countries and
Parties should or must follow the Chinese way.

The slogan "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision" is also a product
of China's specific historical conditions. It was not put forward all of a
sudden, but had been in the making for several years. The idea of long-term
coexistence had been there for a long time. After the socialist system was
basically established last year, the slogan was put forward in explicit
terms. Why should the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democratic parties be
allowed to exist side by side with the party of the working class over a
long period of time? Because we have no reason for not adopting the policy
of long-term coexistence with all those political parties which are truly
devoted to the task of uniting the people for the cause of socialism and
which enjoy the trust of the people. As early as June 1950, at the Second
Session of the National Committee of the People's Political Consultative
Conference, I put the matter in this way:

"The people and the People's Government have no reason to reject anyone or
to deny him the opportunity of making a living and rendering service to the
country, provided he is really willing to serve the people, and provided he
really helped the people when times were difficult, did good before and
keeps on doing good without giving up halfway."

What I was discussing here was the political basis for the long- term
coexistence of the various parties. It is the desire as well as the policy
of the Communist Party to exist side by side with the various democratic
parties for a long time to come. But whether these democratic parties can
remain in existence for long depends not merely on the desire of the
Communist Party but on how well they acquit themselves and on whether they
enjoy the confidence of the people. Mutual supervision among the various
parties is also a long established fact, in the sense that they have long
been advising and criticizing each other.

Mutual supervision is obviously
not a one-sided matter; it means that the Communist Party should exercise
supervision over the democratic parties, and vice versa. Why should the
democratic parties be allowed to exercise supervision over the Communist
Party? Because a party as much as an individual has great need to hear
opinions different from its own. We all know that supervision over the
Communist Party is mainly exercised by the working people and the Party
membership.

But the existence of the democratic parties is also to our
benefit. Of course, the advice and criticism exchanged by the Communist
Party and the democratic parties will play a positive supervisory role only
when they conform to the six political criteria given above. Thus, we hope
that in order to fit in with the needs of the new society, all the
democratic parties will pay attention to ideological remoulding and strive
for long-term coexistence with the Communist Party and mutual supervision.

IX. ON THE QUESTION OF DISTURBANCES CREATED BY SMALL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE

In I956, small numbers of workers or students in certain places went on
strike. The immediate cause of these disturbances was the failure to satisfy
certain of their demands for material benefits, of which some should and
could have been met, while others were out of place or excessive and
therefore could not be met for the time being. But a more important cause
was bureaucracy on the part of the leadership. In some cases, the
responsibility for such bureaucratic mistakes falls on the higher
authorities, and those at lower levels are not entirely to blame. Another
cause of these disturbances was lack of ideological and political education
among the workers and students. In the same year, some members of
agricultural co-operatives also created disturbances, and here too the main
causes were bureaucracy on the part of the leadership and lack of
educational work among the masses.

It should be admitted that some people are prone to pay attention to
immediate, partial and personal interests and do not understand, or do not
sufficiently understand, long- range, national and collective interests.
Because of their lack of experience in political and social life, quite a
number of young people are unable to see the contrast between the old China
and the new, and it is not easy for them thoroughly to comprehend the
hardships our people went through in the struggle to free themselves from
the oppression of the imperialists and Kuomintang reactionaries, or the long
period of arduous work needed before a happy socialist society can be
established. That is why we must constantly carry on lively and effective
political education among the masses and should always tell them the truth
about the difficulties that crop up and discuss with them how to surmount
these difficulties.

We do not approve of disturbances, because contradictions among the people
can be resolved in accordance with the formula of "unity, criticism, unity",
while disturbances are bound to cause some losses and are not conducive to
the advance of socialism. We believe that the masses of the people support
socialism, consciously observe discipline and are reasonable, and will
certainly not take part in disturbances without due cause. But this does not
mean that there is no possibility of disturbances in our country. On this
question, we should pay attention to the following:

(1) In order to root out the causes of disturbances, we must stamp out
bureaucracy, greatly improve ideological and political education, and deal
with all contradictions properly. If this is done, generally speaking there
will be no more disturbances.

(2) If disturbances do occur as a result of bad work on our part, then we
should guide those involved on to the correct path, make use of the
disturbances as a special means for improving our work and educating the
cadres and the masses, and work out solutions to those questions which were
previously left unsolved. In handling any disturbance, we should work
painstakingly and must not use over-simplified methods, or hastily declare
the matter closed. The ringleaders in disturbances should not be summarily
removed from their jobs or expelled, except for those who have committed
criminal offences or are active counter- revolutionaries and have to be
dealt with according to law. In a large country like ours, there is nothing
to get alarmed about if small numbers of people create disturbances; on the
contrary, such disturbances will help us get rid of bureaucracy.

There are also a small number of people in our society who, disregarding the
public interest, willfully break the law and commit crimes. They are apt to
take advantage of our policies and distort them, deliberately put forward
unreasonable demands in order to incite the masses, or deliberately spread
rumours to create trouble and disrupt public order. We do not propose to let
these people have their way. On the contrary, proper legal action must be
taken against them The punishment of such people is the demand of the
masses; and it would run counter to the popular will if they were not
punished.

X. CAN BAD THINGS BE TURNED INTO GOOD THINGS?

In our society, as I have said, it is bad when some people create
disturbances, and we do not approve of it. But when disturbances do occur,
they enable us to learn lessons, to overcome bureaucracy and to educate the
cadres and the masses. In this sense, bad things can be turned into good
things. Disturbances thus have a dual character. Every disturbance can be
regarded in this way.

Everybody knows that the Hungarian events were not a good thing. But they
too had a dual character. Because our Hungarian comrades took proper action
in the course of the events, what was a bad thing has eventually turned into
a good one. The Hungarian state is now more firmly established than ever,
and all other countries in the socialist camp have also learned a lesson.

Similarly, the world-wide campaign against communism and the people launched
in the latter half of 1956 was of course a bad thing. But it educated and
tempered the Communist Parties and the working class in all countries, and
thus it has turned into a good thing. In the storm and stress of this
period, a number of people withdrew from the Communist Party in many
countries. Withdrawal from the Party reduces its membership and is, of
course, a bad thing. But there is a good side to it, too. Vacillating
elements who are unwilling to carry on have withdrawn, but the great
majority of staunch Party members are more firmly united for the struggle.
Why isn't this a good thing?

To sum up, we must learn to look at problems all-sidedly, seeing the reverse
as well as the obverse side of things. In given conditions, a bad thing can
lead to good results and a good thing to bad results. More than two thousand
years ago Lao Tzu said: "Good fortune lieth within bad, bad fortune lurketh
within good."(6) When the Japanese strode into China, they called this a
victory. Huge parts of China's territory were seized, and the Chinese called
this a defeat. But China's defeat contained the seeds of victory, while
Japan's victory contained the seeds of defeat. Has not history proved this
true?

People all over the world are now discussing whether or not a third world
war will break out. On this question, too, we must be mentally prepared and
do some analysis. We stand firmly for peace and against war. But if the
imperialists insist on unleashing another war, we should not be afraid of
it. Our attitude on this question is the same as our attitude towards any
disturbance: first, we are against it; second, we are not afraid of it. The
First World War was followed by the birth of the Soviet Union with a
population of 200 million. The Second World War was followed by the
emergence of the socialist camp with a combined population of 900 million.
If the imperialists insist on launching a third world war, it is certain
that several hundred million more will turn to socialism, and then there
will not be much room left on earth for the imperialists; it is also likely
that the whole structure of imperialism will utterly collapse.

In given conditions, each of the two opposing aspects of a contradiction
invariably transforms itself into its opposite as a result of the struggle
between them. Here, the conditions are essential. Without the given
conditions, neither of the two contradictory aspects can transform itself
into its opposite. Of all the classes in the world the proletariat is the
one which is most eager to change its position, and next comes the
semiproletariat, for the former possesses nothing at while the latter is
hardly better off. The present situation in which the United States controls
a majority in the United Nations and dominates many parts of the world is a
temporary one, which will eventually be changed. China's position as a poor
country denied her rights in international affairs will also be changed--the
poor country will change into a rich one, the country denied its rights into
one enjoying its rights--a transformation of things into their opposites.
Here, the decisive conditions are the socialist system and the concerted
efforts of a united people.

XI. ON PRACTISING ECONOMY

Here I wish to speak briefly on practising economy. We want to carry on
large-scale construction, but our country is still very poor--herein lies a
contradiction. One way of resolving it is to make a sustained effort to
practise strict economy in every field.

During the san fan (or three anti's) movement in 1952, we fought
against corruption, waste and bureaucracy, with the emphasis on combating
corruption. In 1955 we advocated the practice of economy with great success,
our emphasis then being on combating the unduly high standards for
nonproductive projects in capital construction, and on economy in the use of
raw materials in industrial production. But at that time economy was not yet
applied in earnest as a guiding principle in all branches of the national
economy, or in government offices, army units, schools and people's
organizations in general. This year we are calling for economy and the
elimination of waste in every sphere throughout the country. We still lack
experience in the work of construction. During the last few years, great
successes have been achieved, but there has also been waste. We must build
up a number of large-scale modern enterprises step by step to form the
mainstay of our industry, without which we shall not be able to turn our
country into a strong modern industrial power within the coming decades.

But
the majority of our enterprises should not be built on such a scale; we
should set up more small and medium enterprises and make full use of the
industrial base left over from the old society, so as to effect the greatest
economy and do more with less money. Good results have begun to appear in
the few months since the principle of practising strict economy and
combating waste was put forward, in more emphatic terms than before, by the
Second Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
China in November 1956. The present economy campaign must be conducted in a
thorough and sustained way.

Like the criticism of any other faults or
mistakes, the fight against waste may be compared to washing one's face.
Don't people wash their faces every day? The Chinese Communist Party, the
democratic parties, the democrats with no party affiliation, the
intellectuals, industrialists and merchants, workers, peasants and
handicraftsmen--in short, all the 600 million people of our country--must
strive for increased production and economy, and against extravagance and
waste. This is of prime importance not only economically, but politically as
well. A dangerous tendency has shown itself of late among many of our
personnel--an unwillingness to share the joys and hardships of the masses, a
concern for personal fame and gain. This is very bad.

One way of overcoming
it is to simplify our organizations in the course of our campaign to
increase production and practise economy, and to transfer cadres to lower
levels so that a considerable number will return to productive work. We must
see to it that all our cadres and all our people constantly bear in mind
that ours is a big socialist country but an economically backward and poor
one, and that this is a very great contradiction. To make China rich and
strong needs several decades of intense effort, which will include, among
other things, the effort to practise strict economy and combat waste,
i.e., the policy of building up our country through hard work and
thrift.

XII. CHINA'S PATH TO INDUSTRIALIZATION

In discussing our path to industrialization, I am here concerned principally
with the relationship between the growth of heavy industry, light industry
and agriculture. It must be affirmed that heavy industry is the core of
China's economic construction. At the same time, full attention must be paid
to the development of agriculture and light industry.

As China is a large agricultural country, with over 80 per cent of her
population in the rural areas, industry must develop together with
agriculture, for only thus can industry secure raw materials and a market,
and only thus is it possible to accumulate fairly large funds for building a
powerful heavy industry. Everyone knows that light industry is closely
related to agriculture. Without agriculture there can be no light industry.
But it is not yet so clearly understood that agriculture provides heavy
industry with an important market.

This fact, however, will be more readily
appreciated as gradual progress in the technical improvement and
modernization of agriculture calls for more and more machinery, fertilizer,
water conservancy and electric power projects and transport facilities for
the farms, as well as fuel and building materials for the rural consumers.
During the period of the Second and Third Five-Year Plans, the entire
national economy will benefit if we can achieve an even greater growth in
our agriculture and thus induce a correspondingly greater development of
light industry. As agriculture and light industry develop, heavy industry,
assured of its market and funds, will grow faster.

Hence what may seem to be
a slower pace of industrialization will actually not be so slow, and indeed
may even be faster. In three five-year plans or perhaps a little longer,
China's annual steel output can be raised to 20,000,000 tons or mote, as
compared with the peak pre-liberation output of something over 900,000 tons
in 1943. This will gladden the people both in the town and in the
countryside.

I do not propose to dwell on economic questions today. With barely seven
years of economic construction behind us we still lack experience and need
to accumulate it. We had no experience of revolution either when we first
started, and it was only after we had taken a number of tumbles and acquired
experience that we won nation-wide victory. What we must demand of ourselves
now is to cut down the time needed for gaining experience of economic
construction to a shorter period than it took us to gain experience of
revolution and not to pay as high a price for it. Some price we will have to
pay, but we hope it will not be as high as that paid during the period of
revolution.

We must realize that there is a contradiction here--the
contradiction between the objective laws of economic development of a
socialist society and our subjective understanding of them--which needs to
be resolved in the course of practice. This contradiction also manifests
itself as a contradiction between different people that is, a contradiction
between those with a relatively ac curate understanding of these objective
laws and those with a relatively inaccurate understanding of them; this,
too, is a contradiction among the people. Every contradiction is an
objective reality, and it is our task to understand it and resolve it as
correctly as we can.

In order to turn our country into an industrial power, we must learn
conscientiously from the advanced experience of the Soviet Union. The Soviet
Union has been building socialism for forty years, and its experience is
very valuable to us. Let us ask: Who designed and equipped so many important
factories for us? Was it the United States? Or Britain? No, neither of them.
Only the Soviet Union was willing to do so, because it is a socialist
country and our ally.

In addition to the Soviet Union, some East European
fraternal countries have also given us some assistance. It is perfectly true
that we should learn from the good experience of all countries, socialist or
capitalist, and there is no argument about this point. But the main thing is
still to learn from the Soviet Union. Now, there are two different attitudes
towards learning from others. One is the dogmatic attitude of transplanting
everything, whether or not it is suited to our conditions. This is no good.
The other attitude is to use our heads and learn those things which suit our
conditions, that is, to absorb whatever experience is useful to us. That is
the attitude we should adopt.

To strengthen our solidarity with the Soviet Union, to strengthen our
solidarity with all the socialist countries-- this is our fundamental
policy, this is where our basic interest lies. Then there are the Asian and
African countries and all the peace-loving countries and peoples--we must
strengthen an develop our solidarity with them. United with these two
forces, we shall not stand alone. As for the imperialist countries, we
should unite with their peoples and strive to coexist peacefully with those
countries, do business with them and prevent any possible war, but under no
circumstances should we harbour any unrealistic notions about them.

NOTES

1. The Hungarian events refer to the counter-revolutionary rebellion in
Hungary in 1956. In late October of that year, counter-revolutionary
disturbances instigated by the imperialists broke out in socialist Hungary
Communists and other revolutionaries were massacred en masse and
Budapest, the capital, was seized for a time. The imperialists attempted in
vain to make a breach in the socialist camp via Hungary, with the object of
destroying the socialist countries one by one. On November 4, the Hungarian
people established their revolutionary workers' and peasants' government and
smashed the plot for a counter- revolutionary restoration, with the help of
the Soviet army and the sympathy and support of the entire socialist camp
and the progressive forces of the world.

2. The payment of a fixed rate of interest to the national bourgeoisie in
order to buy up their means of production in the course of socialist
transformation is part of the policy of redemption adopted by the state.
Since the conversion of capitalist industry and commerce trade by trade into
joint state-private enterprises in 1956, the state has been the national
bourgeoisie a fixed rate of interest on the money value of their assets,
such payment to run for a given period of time. This interest is still a
form of exploitation.

3. In 1957, at the suggestion of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the Central
Government and the local governments at all levels made a comprehensive
review of the work of suppressing counter-revolutionaries. The results
showed that great successes had been achieved in the struggle against
counter- revolutionaries; except for a few individual instances nearly all
cases had been handled correctly and, moreover, mistakes had been corrected
whenever discovered. In the summer of 1957 however, taking advantage of our
review of the work of suppressing counter-revolutionaries, the bourgeois
Rightists stirred up trouble in an attempt to negate our achievements in
this field and attacked the Party's policy of suppressing
counter-revolutionaries. Opposed by the people throughout the country, their
schemes came to naught.